Croft v. Colquitt County

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Croft v. Colquitt County

121 S.E. 872, 31 Ga. App. 610, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 95

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 22, 1924

Docket14314

StatusPublished

This text of 121 S.E. 872 (Croft v. Colquitt County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Croft v. Colquitt County, 121 S.E. 872, 31 Ga. App. 610, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 95 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit on quantum meruit, where it appears from the petition that the cause of action arises as a breach of an express contract, and that the plaintiff has received the consideration for which the services furnished by him and sued for were performed, it appears that the plaintiff has been paid.for his services, and he therefore cannot recover.

2. In a suit against a county by persons who had furnished services to the county, where it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the county commissioners, if the plaintiffs “would lay out the right of way and stump” a certain public road, that the county commissioners would work the road with the county chain-gang and the road-machine, and where, after the plaintiffs had “stumped approximately a mile of said road” at an expense of $150 to themselves, the commissioners “did send the chain-gang and road-machine and worked said road as they had promised,” the plaintiffs received the consideration promised for their services, and had no right of action against the county for the value of the services furnished by them.

3. The petition set out no cause of action- and was propery dismissed on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit on quantum meruit, where it appears from the petition that the cause of action arises as a breach of an express contract, and that the plaintiff has received the consideration for which the services furnished by him and sued for were performed, it appears that the plaintiff has been paid.for his services, and he therefore cannot recover.

2. In a suit against a county by persons who had furnished services to the county, where it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the county commissioners, if the plaintiffs “would lay out the right of way and stump” a certain public road, that the county commissioners would work the road with the county chain-gang and the road-machine, and where, after the plaintiffs had “stumped approximately a mile of said road” at an expense of $150 to themselves, the commissioners “did send the chain-gang and road-machine and worked said road as they had promised,” the plaintiffs received the consideration promised for their services, and had no right of action against the county for the value of the services furnished by them.

3. The petition set out no cause of action- and was propery dismissed on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 872, 31 Ga. App. 610, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/croft-v-colquitt-county-gactapp-1924.